Tuition fee reforms backfire as we see the biggest drop in university applications in decades as, but Labour still has questions to answer
It is with a great deal of dismay, but little surprise that UCAS, the higher education admissions service, confirmed today that applications to study at university were down seven per cent across the UK, and 10 per cent in England. This represents the biggest drop in university applications for decades, and is twice as big as the drop when tuition fees were last trebled under Labour in 2006. Sadly this represents yet another embarrassing milestone for the coalition in relation to higher education, particularly for those Liberal Democrats whose signature of the NUS pledge to ‘vote against any lifting of the cap’ still haunts them.
Both David Willetts and Vince Cable the government architects of the higher education finance reforms have stressed publicly that they did not wish to see university applications fall. Their attempts at introducing a market have failed as there appears to be practically no relationship between demand and price (there is no obvious pattern between applications and the variable prices charged by universities) and little sign that universities will be providing any improvements in quality in response to students themselves having to bear the overwhelming cost of undergraduate study. The subject areas where the coalition have removed 100 per cent of previous teaching funding in the arts, humanities and social sciences have, unsurprisingly, seen the biggest drops in applications, and the long-term consequences of the ending of state funding for these disciplines could yet be the most devastating legacy this government leaves our higher education sector.
Liberal Democrats desperately hoped that applications would somehow hold up as some kind of justification for their unpopular decision, but instead we have been left with a more expensive system overall, a significant drop in applications and perhaps, worst of all, no obvious alternatives for the hundreds of thousands of young people leaving compulsory education this summer. Expect yet another spike in our already-indefensible youth unemployment statistics. The Lib Dems should take even less comfort from the renewed activism from young people and the fact that they are largely being blamed for the tuition fees vote passing, a combination which could see them lose key university seats that they currently hold including Norwich South, Bristol West, Manchester Withington and the prized seat of Sheffield Hallam currently held by the deputy prime minister. My successor as NUS president, Liam Burns, vowed in a speech at Exeter University last week as he began his second term, ‘that we will not rest until MPs who broke the signed pledge are kicked out of office in 2015.’ I am confident NUS with the support of young people and their families will be more successful than Lib Dems were in sticking to their pledge.
We would be wrong in assuming that a drop in university applications is just a problem for 18-year-old school leavers. The repercussions, both short and long term, are much more profound. As you start to dig into the figures, it is actually the drop among mature students which is the most significant. As Professor Patrick McGhee, vice-chancellor of the University of East London and chair of university thinktank Million+ highlights, studying at university remains one of the best ways to get a career and a job. The drop in applications from mature students is a real concern and will jeopardise the government’s growth and social mobility agenda if it becomes a long-term trend.’
Professor McGhee is absolutely right to highlight the less fashionable and newsworthy topic of mature students, and institutions like his provide a vital second chance to tens of thousands of people every year. It is excellent institutions like that UEL that also play a sizeable role in reskilling and retraining the adult workforce. The role higher education plays in stimulating the economy should not be overlooked, and this was clearly the rationale Peter Mandelson had in mind when higher education was moved from the Department of Education, to the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. Although this was, indeed still is, controversial, there is an obvious logic when the interplay between business and university is respected and understood. Sadly, the coalition appears to have misunderstood this, and at a time when growth is desperately needed, it seems likes yet another needless self-inflicted wound.
Labour, too, should not just be content in the knowledge that young people are flocking back to them in their greatest numbers since tuition fees were introduced in 1998. It is important for Labour to be credible and have a coherent higher education policy and the early announcements from Chuka Umunna and Shabana Mahmood in the shadow BIS team are to be welcomed. During my time as president of NUS, I argued that higher education needed to be seen in the context of other areas of expenditure. Unlike some of the characters that I would debate with on NUS conference floor, real socialists would always prioritise spending in sure start centres, primary and secondary and even further education, over our universities. And I stick by that analysis. Labour’s decision last year to support tuition fees of £6,000 instead of £9,000 if they were in government today, is both plausible and realistic enough. But Labour’s ambition needs to extend beyond tuition fees, and the ongoing policy review should be seen as an opportunity to address wider issues such as university access at undergraduate and postgraduate level, and getting serious about the role our universities can play in delivering lifelong learning. While there continue to be more Afro-Caribbean male students at London Metropolitan University than the entirety of the Russell Group, the challenges in higher education stretch beyond the simple question of what level to set tuition fees.
—————————————————————————————
Aaron Porter is a higher education consultant and was president of the National Union of Students during the high-profile tuition fee debate in 2010-11
—————————————————————————————